+ Reply to Thread
Page 12 of 17 FirstFirst 1 2 12 17 LastLast
Results 221 to 240 of 335

Thread: Do you wear a face mask?

  1. Link to Post #221
    Scotland Avalon Member greybeard's Avatar
    Join Date
    17th March 2010
    Location
    Inverness-----Scotland
    Age
    74
    Posts
    10,902
    Thanks
    25,299
    Thanked 55,579 times in 9,494 posts

    Default Re: Do you wear a face mask?

    Listening to this on link
    Masks bad for immune system and much more on the video.

    https://londonreal.tv/dr-rashid-butt...voices-strong/

    You may have to be a member to access.
    Worth the
    Chris
    Be kind to all life, including your own, no matter what!!

  2. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to greybeard For This Post:

    DaveToo (22nd May 2020), East Sun (25th May 2020), Holly Lindin (6th June 2020), onawah (22nd May 2020), RunningDeer (22nd May 2020), thepainterdoug (24th May 2020)

  3. Link to Post #222
    United States Avalon Member RunningDeer's Avatar
    Join Date
    6th February 2012
    Location
    Forest Dweller
    Posts
    13,750
    Thanks
    100,929
    Thanked 117,587 times in 13,495 posts

    Default Re: Do you wear a face mask?

    Quote Posted by greybeard (here)
    Listening to this on link
    Masks bad for immune system and much more on the video.

    https://londonreal.tv/dr-rashid-butt...voices-strong/

    You may have to be a member to access.
    Worth the
    Chris
    Thanks, Chris. You only have to add an email address for immediate access. 150-160 doctors on the panel.

    100 Voices Strong - DR. RASHID BUTTAR HOSTS A DOCTOR'S COVID-19 ROUNDTABLE
    The Most Controversial Voices In The World
    Dr. Rashid Buttar is the osteopathic physician and author best known for his views on Coronavirus and its management.

    His first book, “The 9 Steps to Keep the Doctor Away” became a Wall Street Journal, USA Today and Amazon INTERNATIONAL BEST SELLER and has now been translated into multiple languages.
    Last edited by RunningDeer; 22nd May 2020 at 10:08.

  4. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to RunningDeer For This Post:

    Bodhicee (23rd May 2020), DaveToo (22nd May 2020), Deux Corbeaux (22nd May 2020), greybeard (22nd May 2020), Holly Lindin (6th June 2020), justntime2learn (25th May 2020), onawah (22nd May 2020), Valerie Villars (23rd May 2020)

  5. Link to Post #223
    France Avalon Member
    Join Date
    4th February 2019
    Location
    South of France
    Language
    French
    Age
    66
    Posts
    159
    Thanks
    1,523
    Thanked 929 times in 154 posts

    Default Re: Do you wear a face mask?

    Quote Posted by AutumnW (here)
    Quote Posted by Luke Holiday (here)
    Quote Posted by AutumnW (here)
    Mikovitz is wrong.
    Judy is very qualified to make her statements which are backed by science … What exactly do feel she is wrong about and why?
    See above posts. Not going to rehash. Mikovits appears to be correct on some aspects of this virus, but is completely wrong on masks. Again, look to the countries who have fared the best and watch Chris Martenson's videos. Get out of the alt right bubble. Bad enough being stuck at home, you don't want to be stuck in an information echi chamber at the same time.
    I re-listened to the views of Dr. Mikovits against wearing a mask are from 30:40 on. She states that wearing a mask drives the infection of your own dormant virus back into and onto oneself. If I got it right she specifically says this virus itself is not infectious But listening a third time i admit it is difficult for me to follow her reasoning.
    One should be very educated in this science to know if that is true or an error.

    ADDED: I listened now to the Plandemic documentary. No problem following that reasoning and this woman is a truly amazing and courageous person

    https://www.naturalnews.com/2020-05-...h-italian.html


    And it is way to early to say that the countries that enforced mask wearing have the best results. Take Africa, Indonesia, India with no masks and no epidemic. That is significant.

    Personally I noticed years ago that taking a crowded metro could get my throat itchy in the flew season ( as soon as I get that symptom I take my grapefruitseeds drips and that stops it fast). I do not know if a mask helps, just like I do not know why I started some years ago putting on a mask while sleeping on the 13 h long distance flights between Paris and Buenos Aires. I did it without knowing much but I heard recently from a businessman who has to drive by car to Italy for lack of flights that he felt much better and no more flew symptoms after flying. So there is something.
    But this mask wearing and terror lie of a rebound has been driven now on the general population even with spring in full bloom. It is a total aberration and bad for the immune system. Here two third of persons and poor small children in the shops wear it, a very sad sight. I stopped 2 weeks ago unless it is a shop that enforces it to enter.

    The "alt right bubble' is quite pejorative as a term but one should of course always be questioning oneself and not move step by step into a false belief system or have a tunnel vision.
    Last edited by Philippe; 23rd May 2020 at 22:00.

  6. Link to Post #224
    Wales Avalon Member
    Join Date
    8th October 2012
    Location
    Wales, UK
    Language
    English
    Age
    51
    Posts
    543
    Thanks
    2,849
    Thanked 2,922 times in 504 posts

    Default Re: Do you wear a face mask?

    Quote Posted by AutumnW (here)
    Quote Posted by Luke Holiday (here)
    Quote Posted by AutumnW (here)
    Mikovitz is wrong.
    Judy is very qualified to make her statements which are backed by science … What exactly do feel she is wrong about and why?
    See above posts. Not going to rehash. Mikovits appears to be correct on some aspects of this virus, but is completely wrong on masks. Again, look to the countries who have fared the best and watch Chris Martenson's videos. Get out of the alt right bubble. Bad enough being stuck at home, you don't want to be stuck in an information echi chamber at the same time.
    Easy tiger. He's asking for explanations not instructions.

  7. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to happyuk For This Post:

    Deux Corbeaux (22nd May 2020), onawah (23rd May 2020)

  8. Link to Post #225
    Canada Avalon Member Ernie Nemeth's Avatar
    Join Date
    25th January 2011
    Location
    Toronto
    Age
    62
    Posts
    3,968
    Thanks
    16,526
    Thanked 23,258 times in 3,720 posts

    Default Re: Do you wear a face mask?

    If you do sign in, be prepared for a major advertising blitz. At least ten emails perday and three or four pop up banners.

    No big deal, as one can unsubscribe.

    Do not forget to turn off notifications as well...

  9. The Following User Says Thank You to Ernie Nemeth For This Post:

    RunningDeer (22nd May 2020)

  10. Link to Post #226
    United States Avalon Member RunningDeer's Avatar
    Join Date
    6th February 2012
    Location
    Forest Dweller
    Posts
    13,750
    Thanks
    100,929
    Thanked 117,587 times in 13,495 posts

    Default Re: Do you wear a face mask?

    Quote Posted by Ernie Nemeth (here)
    If you do sign in, be prepared for a major advertising blitz. At least ten emails perday and three or four pop up banners.

    No big deal, as one can unsubscribe.

    Do not forget to turn off notifications as well...
    Good advice. I’d add this is the second time I’ve signed on over the course of a couple of weeks. Neither time did I experience spam nor a flood of advertising. It may be of how I set my preferences in Safari which is an Apple product.
    Last edited by RunningDeer; 22nd May 2020 at 16:51.

  11. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to RunningDeer For This Post:

    Ernie Nemeth (22nd May 2020), greybeard (22nd May 2020)

  12. Link to Post #227
    Scotland Avalon Member greybeard's Avatar
    Join Date
    17th March 2010
    Location
    Inverness-----Scotland
    Age
    74
    Posts
    10,902
    Thanks
    25,299
    Thanked 55,579 times in 9,494 posts

    Default Re: Do you wear a face mask?

    Off topic
    but over 50K have now signed and I thik its important to do so --- its primarily about liberty.
    Robert Francis Kennedy Jr signed.
    Its in the list of signatures.

    The main reason behind the appeal here
    https://veritasliberabitvos.info/appeal/

    https://veritasliberabitvos.info/sign-the-appeal/
    Be kind to all life, including your own, no matter what!!

  13. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to greybeard For This Post:

    DaveToo (22nd May 2020), Ernie Nemeth (23rd May 2020), RunningDeer (22nd May 2020), thepainterdoug (24th May 2020)

  14. Link to Post #228
    Avalon Member
    Join Date
    3rd July 2018
    Posts
    246
    Thanks
    770
    Thanked 1,505 times in 236 posts

    Default Re: Do you wear a face mask?

    As a more detail research to add to post # 208:


    The Science is Conclusive: Masks and Respirators do NOT Prevent Transmission of Viruses

    Dr. Dennis Rancourt, PhD
    researchgate.net
    Mon, 20 Apr 2020 20:47 UTC
    SOTT Comment: The following review of the scientific literature on wearing surgical and other facemasks as a means of preventing the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and thus preventing contraction of 'Covid-19' was published a month ago. And absent some miraculous suspension of decades of hard science on the transmission of viruses, it's settled...


    Abstract
    Masks and respirators do not work. There have been extensive randomized controlled trial (RCT) studies, and meta-analysis reviews of RCT studies, which all show that masks and respirators do not work to prevent respiratory influenza-like illnesses, or respiratory illnesses believed to be transmitted by droplets and aerosol particles.

    Furthermore, the relevant known physics and biology, which I review, are such that masks and respirators should not work. It would be a paradox if masks and respirators worked, given what we know about viral respiratory diseases: The main transmission path is long-residence-time aerosol particles (< 2.5 μm), which are too fine to be blocked, and the minimum-infective-dose is smaller than one aerosol particle.

    The present paper about masks illustrates the degree to which governments, the mainstream media, and institutional propagandists can decide to operate in a science vacuum, or select only incomplete science that serves their interests. Such recklessness is also certainly the case with the current global lockdown of over 1 billion people, an unprecedented experiment in medical and political history.

    Review of the Medical Literature

    Here are key anchor points to the extensive scientific literature that establishes that wearing surgical masks and respirators (e.g., "N95") does not reduce the risk of contracting a verified illness:
    • Jacobs, J. L. et al. (2009) "Use of surgical face masks to reduce the incidence of the common cold among health care workers in Japan: A randomized controlled trial", American Journal of Infection Control, Volume 37, Issue 5, 417 - 419.
    N95-masked health-care workers (HCW) were significantly more likely to experience headaches. Face mask use in HCW was not demonstrated to provide benefit in terms of cold symptoms or getting colds.
    • Cowling, B. et al. (2010) "Face masks to prevent transmission of influenza virus: A systematic review", Epidemiology and Infection, 138(4), 449-456. doi:10.1017/S0950268809991658
    None of the studies reviewed showed a benefit from wearing a mask, in either HCW or community members in households (H). See summary Tables 1 and 2 therein.
    • bin-Reza et al. (2012) "The use of masks and respirators to prevent transmission of influenza: a systematic review of the scientific evidence", Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses 6(4), 257-267.
    "There were 17 eligible studies. [...] None of the studies established a conclusive relationship between mask ⁄ respirator use and protection against influenza infection."
    • Smith, J.D. et al. (2016) "Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks in protecting health care workers from acute respiratory infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis", CMAJ Mar 2016, cmaj.150835; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.150835
    "We identified 6 clinical studies ... In the meta-analysis of the clinical studies, we found no significant difference between N95 respirators and surgical masks in associated risk of (a) laboratory-confirmed respiratory infection, (b) influenza-like illness, or (c) reported work-place absenteeism."
    "Self-reported assessment of clinical outcomes was prone to bias. Evidence of a protective effect of masks or respirators against verified respiratory infection (VRI) was not statistically significant"; as per Fig. 2c therein:

    Clinical Infectious Diseases, Volume 65, Issue 11, 1 December 2017, Pages 1934–1942, https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/cix681
    • Radonovich, L.J. et al. (2019) "N95 Respirators vs Medical Masks for Preventing Influenza Among Health Care Personnel: A Randomized Clinical Trial", JAMA. 2019; 322(9): 824-833. doi:10.1001/jama.2019.11645
    "Among 2862 randomized participants, 2371 completed the study and accounted for 5180 HCW-seasons. ... Among outpatient health care personnel, N95 respirators vs medical masks as worn by participants in this trial resulted in no significant difference in the incidence of laboratory-confirmed influenza."
    "A total of six RCTs involving 9 171 participants were included. There were no statistically significant differences in preventing laboratory-confirmed influenza, laboratory-confirmed respiratory viral infections, laboratory-confirmed respiratory infection and influenza-like illness using N95 respirators and surgical masks. Meta-analysis indicated a protective effect of N95 respirators against laboratory-confirmed bacterial colonization (RR = 0.58, 95% CI 0.43-0.78). The use of N95 respirators compared with surgical masks is not associated with a lower risk of laboratory-confirmed influenza."
    Conclusion regarding masks that do not work
    No RCT study with verified outcome shows a benefit for HCW or community members in households to wearing a mask or respirator. There is no such study. There are no exceptions. Likewise, no study exists that shows a benefit from a broad policy to wear masks in public (more on this below).

    Furthermore, if there were any benefit to wearing a mask, because of the blocking power against droplets and aerosol particles, then there should be more benefit from wearing a respirator (N95) compared to a surgical mask, yet several large meta-analyses, and all the RCT, prove that there is no such relative benefit. Masks and respirators do not work.

    Precautionary Principle turned on its head with masks
    In light of the medical research, therefore, it is difficult to understand why public-health authorities are not consistently adamant about this established scientific result, since the distributed psychological, economic and environmental harm from a broad recommendation to wear masks is significant, not to mention the unknown potential harm from concentration and distribution of pathogens on and from used masks.

    In this case, public authorities would be turning the precautionary principle on its head (see below).

    Physics and Biology of Viral Respiratory Disease, and why masks do not work
    In order to understand why masks cannot possibly work, we must review established knowledge about viral respiratory diseases, the mechanism of seasonal variation of excess deaths from pneumonia and influenza, the aerosol mechanism of infectious disease transmission, the physics and chemistry of aerosols, and the mechanism of the so-called minimum-infective-dose.

    In addition to pandemics that can occur anytime, in the temperate latitudes there is an extra burden of respiratory-disease mortality that is seasonal, and which is caused by viruses. For example, see the review of influenza by Paules and Subbarao (2017). This has been known for a long time, and the seasonal pattern is exceedingly regular.

    For example, see Figure 1 of Viboud (2010), which has "Weekly time series of the ratio of deaths from pneumonia and influenza to all deaths, based on the 122 cities surveillance in the US (blue line). The red line represents the expected baseline ratio in the absence of influenza activity," here:

    The seasonality of the phenomenon was largely not understood until a decade ago. Until recently, it was debated whether the pattern arose primarily because of seasonal change in virulence of the pathogens, or because of seasonal change in susceptibility of the host (such as from dry air causing tissue irritation, or diminished daylight causing vitamin deficiency or hormonal stress). For example, see Dowell (2001).

    In a landmark study, Shaman et al. (2010) showed that the seasonal pattern of extra respiratory-disease mortality can be explained quantitatively on the sole basis of absolute humidity, and its direct controlling impact on transmission of airborne pathogens.

    Lowen et al. (2007) demonstrated the phenomenon of humidity-dependent airborne-virus virulence in actual disease transmission between guinea pigs, and discussed potential underlying mechanisms for the measured controlling effect of humidity.

    The underlying mechanism is that the pathogen-laden aerosol particles or droplets are neutralized within a half-life that monotonically and significantly decreases with increasing ambient humidity. This is based on the seminal work of Harper (1961). Harper experimentally showed that viral-pathogen-carrying droplets were inactivated within shorter and shorter times, as ambient humidity was increased.

    Harper argued that the viruses themselves were made inoperative by the humidity ("viable decay"), however, he admitted that the effect could be from humidity-enhanced physical removal or sedimentation of the droplets ("physical loss"): "Aerosol viabilities reported in this paper are based on the ratio of virus titre to radioactive count in suspension and cloud samples, and can be criticized on the ground that test and tracer materials were not physically identical."

    The latter ("physical loss") seems more plausible to me, since humidity would have a universal physical effect of causing particle / droplet growth and sedimentation, and all tested viral pathogens have essentially the same humidity-driven "decay". Furthermore, it is difficult to understand how a virion (of all virus types) in a droplet would be molecularly or structurally attacked or damaged by an increase in ambient humidity. A "virion" is the complete, infective form of a virus outside a host cell, with a core of RNA or DNA and a capsid. The actual mechanism of such humidity-driven intra-droplet "viable decay" of a virion has not been explained or studied.

    In any case, the explanation and model of Shaman et al. (2010) is not dependant on the particular mechanism of the humidity-driven decay of virions in aerosol / droplets. Shaman's quantitatively demonstrated model of seasonal regional viral epidemiology is valid for either mechanism (or combination of mechanisms), whether "viable decay" or "physical loss".

    The breakthrough achieved by Shaman et al. is not merely some academic point. Rather, it has profound health-policy implications, which have been entirely ignored or overlooked in the current coronavirus pandemic.

    In particular, Shaman's work necessarily implies that, rather than being a fixed number (dependent solely on the spatial-temporal structure of social interactions in a completely susceptible population, and on the viral strain), the epidemic's basic reproduction number (R0) is highly or predominantly dependent on ambient absolute humidity.

    For a definition of R0, see HealthKnowlege-UK (2020): R0 is "the average number of secondary infections produced by a typical case of an infection in a population where everyone is susceptible." The average R0 for influenza is said to be 1.28 (1.19-1.37); see the comprehensive review by Biggerstaff et al. (2014).

    In fact, Shaman et al. showed that R0 must be understood to seasonally vary between humid-summer values of just larger than "1" and dry-winter values typically as large as "4" (for example, see their Table 2). In other words, the seasonal infectious viral respiratory diseases that plague temperate latitudes every year go from being intrinsically mildly contagious to virulently contagious, due simply to the bio-physical mode of transmission controlled by atmospheric humidity, irrespective of any other consideration.

    Therefore, all the epidemiological mathematical modelling of the benefits of mediating policies (such as social distancing), which assumes humidity-independent R0 values, has a large likelihood of being of little value, on this basis alone. For studies about modelling and regarding mediation effects on the effective reproduction number, see Coburn (2009) and Tracht (2010).

    To put it simply, the "second wave" of an epidemic is not a consequence of human sin regarding mask wearing and hand shaking. Rather, the "second wave" is an inescapable consequence of an air-dryness-driven many-fold increase in disease contagiousness, in a population that has not yet attained immunity.

    If my view of the mechanism is correct (i.e., "physical loss"), then Shaman's work further necessarily implies that the dryness-driven high transmissibility (large R0) arises from small aerosol particles fluidly suspended in the air; as opposed to large droplets that are quickly gravitationally removed from the air.

    Such small aerosol particles fluidly suspended in air, of biological origin, are of every variety and are everywhere, including down to virion-sizes (Despres, 2012). It is not entirely unlikely that viruses can thereby be physically transported over inter-continental distances (e.g., Hammond, 1989).

    More to the point, indoor airborne virus concentrations have been shown to exist (in day-care facilities, health centres, and onboard airplanes) primarily as aerosol particles of diameters smaller than 2.5 μm, such as in the work of Yang et al. (2011):
    "Half of the 16 samples were positive, and their total virus concentrations ranged from 5800 to 37 000 genome copies m−3. On average, 64 per cent of the viral genome copies were associated with fine particles smaller than 2.5 µm, which can remain suspended for hours. Modelling of virus concentrations indoors suggested a source strength of 1.6 ± 1.2 × 105 genome copies m−3 air h−1 and a deposition flux onto surfaces of 13 ± 7 genome copies m−2 h−1 by Brownian motion. Over 1 hour, the inhalation dose was estimated to be 30 ± 18 median tissue culture infectious dose (TCID50), adequate to induce infection. These results provide quantitative support for the idea that the aerosol route could be an important mode of influenza transmission."
    Such small particles (< 2.5 μm) are part of air fluidity, are not subject to gravitational sedimentation, and would not be stopped by long-range inertial impact. This means that the slightest (even momentary) facial misfit of a mask or respirator renders the design filtration norm of the mask or respirator entirely irrelevant. In any case, the filtration material itself of N95 (average pore size ~0.3−0.5 μm) does not block virion penetration, not to mention surgical masks. For example, see Balazy et al. (2006).

    Mask stoppage efficiency and host inhalation are only half of the equation, however, because the minimal infective dose (MID) must also be considered. For example, if a large number of pathogen-laden particles must be delivered to the lung within a certain time for the illness to take hold, then partial blocking by any mask or cloth can be enough to make a significant difference.

    On the other hand, if the MID is amply surpassed by the virions carried in a single aerosol particle able to evade mask-capture, then the mask is of no practical utility, which is the case.

    Yezli and Otter (2011), in their review of the MID, point out relevant features:
    • most respiratory viruses are as infective in humans as in tissue culture having optimal laboratory susceptibility
    • it is believed that a single virion can be enough to induce illness in the host
    • the 50%-probability MID ("TCID50") has variably been found to be in the range 100−1000 virions
    • there are typically 103−107 virions per aerolized influenza droplet with diameter 1 μm − 10 μm
    • the 50%-probability MID easily fits into a single (one) aerolized droplet
    For further background:
    • A classic description of dose-response assessment is provided by Haas (1993).
    • Zwart et al. (2009) provided the first laboratory proof, in a virus-insect system, that the action of a single virion can be sufficient to cause disease.
    • Baccam et al. (2006) calculated from empirical data that, with influenza A in humans, "we estimate that after a delay of ~6 h, infected cells begin producing influenza virus and continue to do so for ~5 h. The average lifetime of infected cells is ~11 h, and the half-life of free infectious virus is ~3 h. We calculated the [in-body] basic reproductive number, R0, which indicated that a single infected cell could produce ~22 new productive infections."
    • Brooke et al. (2013) showed that, contrary to prior modeling assumptions, although not all influenza-A-infected cells in the human body produce infectious progeny (virions), nonetheless, 90% of infected cell are significantly impacted, rather than simply surviving unharmed.
    All of this to say that: if anything gets through (and it always does, irrespective of the mask), then you are going to be infected. Masks cannot possibly work. It is not surprising, therefore, that no bias-free study has ever found a benefit from wearing a mask or respirator in this application.

    Therefore, the studies that show partial stopping power of masks, or that show that masks can capture many large droplets produced by a sneezing or coughing mask-wearer, in light of the above-described features of the problem, are irrelevant. For example, see such studies as these: Leung (2020), Davies (2013), Lai (2012), and Sande (2008).

    Why there can never be an empirical test of a nationwide mask-wearing policy
    As mentioned above, no study exists that shows a benefit from a broad policy to wear masks in public. There is good reason for this. It would be impossible to obtain unambiguous and bias-free results:
    • Any benefit from mask-wearing would have to be a small effect, since undetected in controlled experiments, which would be swamped by the larger effects, notably the large effect from changing atmospheric humidity.
    • Mask compliance and mask adjustment habits would be unknown.
    • Mask-wearing is associated (correlated) with several other health behaviours; see Wada (2012).
    • The results would not be transferable, because of differing cultural habits.
    • Compliance is achieved by fear, and individuals can habituate to fear-based propaganda, and can have disparate basic responses.
    • Monitoring and compliance measurement are near-impossible, and subject to large errors.
    • Self-reporting (such as in surveys) is notoriously biased, because individuals have the self-interested belief that their efforts are useful.
    • Progression of the epidemic is not verified with reliable tests on large population samples, and generally relies on non-representative hospital visits or admissions.
    • Several different pathogens (viruses and strains of viruses) causing respiratory illness generally act together, in the same population and/or in individuals, and are not resolved, while having different epidemiological characteristics.
    Unknown aspects of mask-wearing
    Many potential harms may arise from broad public policies to wear masks, and the following unanswered questions arise:
    • Do used and loaded masks become sources of enhanced transmission, for the wearer and others?
    • Do masks become collectors and retainers of pathogens that the mask wearer would otherwise avoid when breathing without a mask?
    • Are large droplets captured by a mask atomized or aerolized into breathable components? Can virions escape an evaporating droplet stuck to a mask fiber?
    • What are the dangers of bacterial growth on a used and loaded mask?
    • How do pathogen-laden droplets interact with environmental dust and aerosols captured on the mask?
    • What are long-term health effects on HCW, such as headaches, arising from impeded breathing?
    • Are there negative social consequences to a masked society?
    • Are there negative psychological consequences to wearing a mask, as a fear-based behavioural modification?
    • What are the environmental consequences of mask manufacturing and disposal?
    • Do the masks shed fibres or substances that are harmful when inhaled?
    Conclusion
    By making mask-wearing recommendations and policies for the general public, or by expressly condoning the practice, governments have both ignored the scientific evidence and done the opposite of following the precautionary principle.

    In an absence of knowledge, governments should not make policies that have a hypothetical potential to cause harm. The government has an onus barrier before it instigates a broad social-engineering intervention, or allows corporations to exploit fear-based sentiments.

    Furthermore, individuals should know that there is no known benefit arising from wearing a mask in a viral respiratory illness epidemic, and that scientific studies have shown that any benefit must be residually small, compared to other and determinative factors.

    Otherwise, what is the point of publicly-funded science?

    The present paper about masks illustrates the degree to which governments, the mainstream media, and institutional propagandists can decide to operate in a science vacuum, or select only incomplete science that serves their interests. Such recklessness is also certainly the case with the current global lockdown of over 1 billion people, an unprecedented experiment in medical and political history.

    Endnotes
    • Baccam, P. et al. (2006) "Kinetics of Influenza A Virus Infection in Humans", Journal of Virology Jul 2006, 80 (15) 7590-7599; DOI: 10.1128/JVI.01623-05
    • Balazy et al. (2006) "Do N95 respirators provide 95% protection level against airborne viruses, and how adequate are surgical masks?", American Journal of Infection Control, Volume 34, Issue 2, March 2006, Pages 51-57. doi:10.1016/j.ajic.2005.08.018
    • Biggerstaff, M. et al. (2014) "Estimates of the reproduction number for seasonal, pandemic, and zoonotic influenza: a systematic review of the literature", BMC Infect Dis 14, 480 (2014).
    • Brooke, C. B. et al. (2013) "Most Influenza A Virions Fail To Express at Least One Essential Viral Protein", Journal of Virology Feb 2013, 87 (6) 3155-3162; DOI: 10.1128/JVI.02284-12
    • Coburn, B. J. et al. (2009) "Modeling influenza epidemics and pandemics: insights into the future of swine flu (H1N1)", BMC Med 7, 30.
    • Davies, A. et al. (2013) "Testing the Efficacy of Homemade Masks: Would They Protect in an Influenza Pandemic?", Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness, Available on CJO 2013 doi:10.1017/dmp.2013.43
    • Despres, V. R. et al. (2012) "Primary biological aerosol particles in the atmosphere: a review", Tellus B: Chemical and Physical Meteorology, 64:1, 15598, DOI: 10.3402/tellusb.v64i0.15598
    • Dowell, S. F. (2001) "Seasonal variation in host susceptibility and cycles of certain infectious diseases", Emerg Infect Dis. 2001;7(3):369-374. doi:10.3201/eid0703.010301
    • Hammond, G. W. et al. (1989) "Impact of Atmospheric Dispersion and Transport of Viral Aerosols on the Epidemiology of Influenza", Reviews of Infectious Diseases, Volume 11, Issue 3, May 1989, Pages 494-497,
    • Haas, C.N. et al. (1993) "Risk Assessment of Virus in Drinking Water", Risk Analysis, 13: 545-552. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.1993.tb00013.x
    • HealthKnowlege-UK (2020) "Charter 1a - Epidemiology: Epidemic theory (effective & basic reproduction numbers, epidemic thresholds) & techniques for analysis of infectious disease data (construction & use of epidemic curves, generation numbers, exceptional reporting & identification of significant clusters)", HealthKnowledge.org.uk, accessed on 2020-04-10.
    • Lai, A. C. K. et al. (2012) "Effectiveness of facemasks to reduce exposure hazards for airborne infections among general populations", J. R. Soc. Interface. 9938-948
    • Leung, N.H.L. et al. (2020) "Respiratory virus shedding in exhaled breath and efficacy of face masks", Nature Medicine (2020).
    • Lowen, A. C. et al. (2007) "Influenza Virus Transmission Is Dependent on Relative Humidity and Temperature", PLoS Pathog 3(10): e151.
    • Paules, C. and Subbarao, S. (2017) "Influenza", Lancet, Seminar| Volume 390, ISSUE 10095, P697-708, August 12, 2017.
    • Sande, van der, M. et al. (2008) "Professional and Home-Made Face Masks Reduce Exposure to Respiratory Infections among the General Population", PLoS ONE 3(7): e2618. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0002618 Shaman, J. et al. (2010) "Absolute Humidity and the Seasonal Onset of Influenza in the Continental United States", PLoS Biol 8(2): e1000316. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1000316
    • Tracht, S. M. et al. (2010) "Mathematical Modeling of the Effectiveness of Facemasks in Reducing the Spread of Novel Influenza A (H1N1)", PLoS ONE 5(2): e9018. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0009018
    • Viboud C. et al. (2010) "Preliminary Estimates of Mortality and Years of Life Lost Associated with the 2009 A/H1N1 Pandemic in the US and Comparison with Past Influenza Seasons", PLoS Curr. 2010; 2:RRN1153. Published 2010 Mar 20. doi:10.1371/currents.rrn1153
    • Wada, K. et al. (2012) "Wearing face masks in public during the influenza season may reflect other positive hygiene practices in Japan", BMC Public Health 12, 1065 (2012).
    • Yang, W. et al. (2011) "Concentrations and size distributions of airborne influenza A viruses measured indoors at a health centre, a day-care centre and on aeroplanes", Journal of the Royal Society, Interface. 2011 Aug;8(61):1176-1184. DOI: 10.1098/rsif.2010.0686.
    • Yezli, S., Otter, J.A. (2011) "Minimum Infective Dose of the Major Human Respiratory and Enteric Viruses Transmitted Through Food and the Environment", Food Environ Virol 3, 1-30.
    • Zwart, M. P. et al. (2009) "An experimental test of the independent action hypothesis in virus-insect pathosystems", Proc. R. Soc. B. 2762233-2242


    About the author
    Dr. Dennis Rancourt is Ph.D from University of Toronto (1984), and is a former professor of physics at the University of Ottawa.

  15. The Following 14 Users Say Thank You to Gwin Ru For This Post:

    ahamkara (24th May 2020), Ayt (25th May 2020), ClearWater (23rd May 2020), DaveToo (22nd May 2020), DeDukshyn (23rd May 2020), Ernie Nemeth (23rd May 2020), Franny (23rd May 2020), Holly Lindin (6th June 2020), justntime2learn (25th May 2020), Luke Holiday (23rd May 2020), onawah (23rd May 2020), Philippe (23rd May 2020), RunningDeer (22nd May 2020), Valerie Villars (23rd May 2020)

  16. Link to Post #229
    United States Avalon Member Luke Holiday's Avatar
    Join Date
    15th January 2018
    Location
    Arizona
    Language
    English
    Posts
    277
    Thanks
    628
    Thanked 1,197 times in 232 posts

    Default Re: Do you wear a face mask?

    [ATTACH]
    HTML Code:
    [HTML]43676
    [/HTML][/ATTACH][QUOTE=Gwin Ru;1357426]As a more detail research to add to post # 208:


    The Science is Conclusive: Masks and Respirators do NOT Prevent Transmission of Viruses

    Dr. Dennis Rancourt, PhD
    researchgate.net
    Mon, 20 Apr 2020 20:47 UTC
    SOTT Comment: The following review of the scientific literature on wearing surgical and other facemasks as a means of preventing the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and thus preventing contraction of 'Covid-19' was published a month ago. And absent some miraculous suspension of decades of hard science on the transmission of viruses, it's settled...


    Abstract
    Masks and respirators do not work. There have been extensive randomized controlled trial (RCT) studies, and meta-analysis reviews of RCT studies, which all show that masks and respirators do not work to prevent respiratory influenza-like illnesses, or respiratory illnesses believed to be transmitted by droplets and aerosol particles.

    Furthermore, the relevant known physics and biology, which I review, are such that masks and respirators should not work. It would be a paradox if masks and respirators worked, given what we know about viral respiratory diseases: The main transmission path is long-residence-time aerosol particles (< 2.5 μm), which are too fine to be blocked, and the minimum-infective-dose is smaller than one aerosol particle.

    The present paper about masks illustrates the degree to which governments, the mainstream media, and institutional propagandists can decide to operate in a science vacuum, or select only incomplete science that serves their interests. Such recklessness is also certainly the case with the current global lockdown of over 1 billion people, an unprecedented experiment in medical and political history.

    Review of the Medical Literature

    Here are key anchor points to the extensive scientific literature that establishes that wearing surgical masks and respirators (e.g., "N95") does not reduce the risk of contracting a verified illness:
    • Jacobs, J. L. et al. (2009) "Use of surgical face masks to reduce the incidence of the common cold among health care workers in Japan: A randomized controlled trial", American Journal of Infection Control, Volume 37, Issue 5, 417 - 419.
    N95-masked health-care workers (HCW) were significantly more likely to experience headaches. Face mask use in HCW was not demonstrated to provide benefit in terms of cold symptoms or getting colds.
    • Cowling, B. et al. (2010) "Face masks to prevent transmission of influenza virus: A systematic review", Epidemiology and Infection, 138(4), 449-456. doi:10.1017/S0950268809991658
    None of the studies reviewed showed a benefit from wearing a mask, in either HCW or community members in households (H). See summary Tables 1 and 2 therein.
    • bin-Reza et al. (2012) "The use of masks and respirators to prevent transmission of influenza: a systematic review of the scientific evidence", Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses 6(4), 257-267.
    "There were 17 eligible studies. [...] None of the studies established a conclusive relationship between mask ⁄ respirator use and protection against influenza infection."
    • Smith, J.D. et al. (2016) "Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks in protecting health care workers from acute respiratory infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis", CMAJ Mar 2016, cmaj.150835; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.150835
    "We identified 6 clinical studies ... In the meta-analysis of the clinical studies, we found no significant difference between N95 respirators and surgical masks in associated risk of (a) laboratory-confirmed respiratory infection, (b) influenza-like illness, or (c) reported work-place absenteeism."
    "Self-reported assessment of clinical outcomes was prone to bias. Evidence of a protective effect of masks or respirators against verified respiratory infection (VRI) was not statistically significant"; as per Fig. 2c therein:

    Clinical Infectious Diseases, Volume 65, Issue 11, 1 December 2017, Pages 1934–1942, https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/cix681
    • Radonovich, L.J. et al. (2019) "N95 Respirators vs Medical Masks for Preventing Influenza Among Health Care Personnel: A Randomized Clinical Trial", JAMA. 2019; 322(9): 824-833. doi:10.1001/jama.2019.11645
    "Among 2862 randomized participants, 2371 completed the study and accounted for 5180 HCW-seasons. ... Among outpatient health care personnel, N95 respirators vs medical masks as worn by participants in this trial resulted in no significant difference in the incidence of laboratory-confirmed influenza."
    "A total of six RCTs involving 9 171 participants were included. There were no statistically significant differences in preventing laboratory-confirmed influenza, laboratory-confirmed respiratory viral infections, laboratory-confirmed respiratory infection and influenza-like illness using N95 respirators and surgical masks. Meta-analysis indicated a protective effect of N95 respirators against laboratory-confirmed bacterial colonization (RR = 0.58, 95% CI 0.43-0.78). The use of N95 respirators compared with surgical masks is not associated with a lower risk of laboratory-confirmed influenza."
    Conclusion regarding masks that do not work
    No RCT study with verified outcome shows a benefit for HCW or community members in households to wearing a mask or respirator. There is no such study. There are no exceptions. Likewise, no study exists that shows a benefit from a broad policy to wear masks in public (more on this below).

    Furthermore, if there were any benefit to wearing a mask, because of the blocking power against droplets and aerosol particles, then there should be more benefit from wearing a respirator (N95) compared to a surgical mask, yet several large meta-analyses, and all the RCT, prove that there is no such relative benefit. Masks and respirators do not work.

    Precautionary Principle turned on its head with masks
    In light of the medical research, therefore, it is difficult to understand why public-health authorities are not consistently adamant about this established scientific result, since the distributed psychological, economic and environmental harm from a broad recommendation to wear masks is significant, not to mention the unknown potential harm from concentration and distribution of pathogens on and from used masks.

    In this case, public authorities would be turning the precautionary principle on its head (see below).

    Physics and Biology of Viral Respiratory Disease, and why masks do not work
    In order to understand why masks cannot possibly work, we must review established knowledge about viral respiratory diseases, the mechanism of seasonal variation of excess deaths from pneumonia and influenza, the aerosol mechanism of infectious disease transmission, the physics and chemistry of aerosols, and the mechanism of the so-called minimum-infective-dose.

    In addition to pandemics that can occur anytime, in the temperate latitudes there is an extra burden of respiratory-disease mortality that is seasonal, and which is caused by viruses. For example, see the review of influenza by Paules and Subbarao (2017). This has been known for a long time, and the seasonal pattern is exceedingly regular.

    For example, see Figure 1 of Viboud (2010), which has "Weekly time series of the ratio of deaths from pneumonia and influenza to all deaths, based on the 122 cities surveillance in the US (blue line). The red line represents the expected baseline ratio in the absence of influenza activity," here:

    The seasonality of the phenomenon was largely not understood until a decade ago. Until recently, it was debated whether the pattern arose primarily because of seasonal change in virulence of the pathogens, or because of seasonal change in susceptibility of the host (such as from dry air causing tissue irritation, or diminished daylight causing vitamin deficiency or hormonal stress). For example, see Dowell (2001).

    In a landmark study, Shaman et al. (2010) showed that the seasonal pattern of extra respiratory-disease mortality can be explained quantitatively on the sole basis of absolute humidity, and its direct controlling impact on transmission of airborne pathogens.

    Lowen et al. (2007) demonstrated the phenomenon of humidity-dependent airborne-virus virulence in actual disease transmission between guinea pigs, and discussed potential underlying mechanisms for the measured controlling effect of humidity.

    The underlying mechanism is that the pathogen-laden aerosol particles or droplets are neutralized within a half-life that monotonically and significantly decreases with increasing ambient humidity. This is based on the seminal work of Harper (1961). Harper experimentally showed that viral-pathogen-carrying droplets were inactivated within shorter and shorter times, as ambient humidity was increased.

    Harper argued that the viruses themselves were made inoperative by the humidity ("viable decay"), however, he admitted that the effect could be from humidity-enhanced physical removal or sedimentation of the droplets ("physical loss"): "Aerosol viabilities reported in this paper are based on the ratio of virus titre to radioactive count in suspension and cloud samples, and can be criticized on the ground that test and tracer materials were not physically identical."

    The latter ("physical loss") seems more plausible to me, since humidity would have a universal physical effect of causing particle / droplet growth and sedimentation, and all tested viral pathogens have essentially the same humidity-driven "decay". Furthermore, it is difficult to understand how a virion (of all virus types) in a droplet would be molecularly or structurally attacked or damaged by an increase in ambient humidity. A "virion" is the complete, infective form of a virus outside a host cell, with a core of RNA or DNA and a capsid. The actual mechanism of such humidity-driven intra-droplet "viable decay" of a virion has not been explained or studied.

    In any case, the explanation and model of Shaman et al. (2010) is not dependant on the particular mechanism of the humidity-driven decay of virions in aerosol / droplets. Shaman's quantitatively demonstrated model of seasonal regional viral epidemiology is valid for either mechanism (or combination of mechanisms), whether "viable decay" or "physical loss".

    The breakthrough achieved by Shaman et al. is not merely some academic point. Rather, it has profound health-policy implications, which have been entirely ignored or overlooked in the current coronavirus pandemic.

    In particular, Shaman's work necessarily implies that, rather than being a fixed number (dependent solely on the spatial-temporal structure of social interactions in a completely susceptible population, and on the viral strain), the epidemic's basic reproduction number (R0) is highly or predominantly dependent on ambient absolute humidity.

    For a definition of R0, see HealthKnowlege-UK (2020): R0 is "the average number of secondary infections produced by a typical case of an infection in a population where everyone is susceptible." The average R0 for influenza is said to be 1.28 (1.19-1.37); see the comprehensive review by Biggerstaff et al. (2014).

    In fact, Shaman et al. showed that R0 must be understood to seasonally vary between humid-summer values of just larger than "1" and dry-winter values typically as large as "4" (for example, see their Table 2). In other words, the seasonal infectious viral respiratory diseases that plague temperate latitudes every year go from being intrinsically mildly contagious to virulently contagious, due simply to the bio-physical mode of transmission controlled by atmospheric humidity, irrespective of any other consideration.

    Therefore, all the epidemiological mathematical modelling of the benefits of mediating policies (such as social distancing), which assumes humidity-independent R0 values, has a large likelihood of being of little value, on this basis alone. For studies about modelling and regarding mediation effects on the effective reproduction number, see Coburn (2009) and Tracht (2010).

    To put it simply, the "second wave" of an epidemic is not a consequence of human sin regarding mask wearing and hand shaking. Rather, the "second wave" is an inescapable consequence of an air-dryness-driven many-fold increase in disease contagiousness, in a population that has not yet attained immunity.

    If my view of the mechanism is correct (i.e., "physical loss"), then Shaman's work further necessarily implies that the dryness-driven high transmissibility (large R0) arises from small aerosol particles fluidly suspended in the air; as opposed to large droplets that are quickly gravitationally removed from the air.

    Such small aerosol particles fluidly suspended in air, of biological origin, are of every variety and are everywhere, including down to virion-sizes (Despres, 2012). It is not entirely unlikely that viruses can thereby be physically transported over inter-continental distances (e.g., Hammond, 1989).

    More to the point, indoor airborne virus concentrations have been shown to exist (in day-care facilities, health centres, and onboard airplanes) primarily as aerosol particles of diameters smaller than 2.5 μm, such as in the work of Yang et al. (2011):
    "Half of the 16 samples were positive, and their total virus concentrations ranged from 5800 to 37 000 genome copies m−3. On average, 64 per cent of the viral genome copies were associated with fine particles smaller than 2.5 µm, which can remain suspended for hours. Modelling of virus concentrations indoors suggested a source strength of 1.6 ± 1.2 × 105 genome copies m−3 air h−1 and a deposition flux onto surfaces of 13 ± 7 genome copies m−2 h−1 by Brownian motion. Over 1 hour, the inhalation dose was estimated to be 30 ± 18 median tissue culture infectious dose (TCID50), adequate to induce infection. These results provide quantitative support for the idea that the aerosol route could be an important mode of influenza transmission."
    Such small particles (< 2.5 μm) are part of air fluidity, are not subject to gravitational sedimentation, and would not be stopped by long-range inertial impact. This means that the slightest (even momentary) facial misfit of a mask or respirator renders the design filtration norm of the mask or respirator entirely irrelevant. In any case, the filtration material itself of N95 (average pore size ~0.3−0.5 μm) does not block virion penetration, not to mention surgical masks. For example, see Balazy et al. (2006).

    Mask stoppage efficiency and host inhalation are only half of the equation, however, because the minimal infective dose (MID) must also be considered. For example, if a large number of pathogen-laden particles must be delivered to the lung within a certain time for the illness to take hold, then partial blocking by any mask or cloth can be enough to make a significant difference.

    On the other hand, if the MID is amply surpassed by the virions carried in a single aerosol particle able to evade mask-capture, then the mask is of no practical utility, which is the case.

    Yezli and Otter (2011), in their review of the MID, point out relevant features:
    • most respiratory viruses are as infective in humans as in tissue culture having optimal laboratory susceptibility
    • it is believed that a single virion can be enough to induce illness in the host
    • the 50%-probability MID ("TCID50") has variably been found to be in the range 100−1000 virions
    • there are typically 103−107 virions per aerolized influenza droplet with diameter 1 μm − 10 μm
    • the 50%-probability MID easily fits into a single (one) aerolized droplet
    For further background:
    • A classic description of dose-response assessment is provided by Haas (1993).
    • Zwart et al. (2009) provided the first laboratory proof, in a virus-insect system, that the action of a single virion can be sufficient to cause disease.
    • Baccam et al. (2006) calculated from empirical data that, with influenza A in humans, "we estimate that after a delay of ~6 h, infected cells begin producing influenza virus and continue to do so for ~5 h. The average lifetime of infected cells is ~11 h, and the half-life of free infectious virus is ~3 h. We calculated the [in-body] basic reproductive number, R0, which indicated that a single infected cell could produce ~22 new productive infections."
    • Brooke et al. (2013) showed that, contrary to prior modeling assumptions, although not all influenza-A-infected cells in the human body produce infectious progeny (virions), nonetheless, 90% of infected cell are significantly impacted, rather than simply surviving unharmed.
    All of this to say that: if anything gets through (and it always does, irrespective of the mask), then you are going to be infected. Masks cannot possibly work. It is not surprising, therefore, that no bias-free study has ever found a benefit from wearing a mask or respirator in this application.

    Therefore, the studies that show partial stopping power of masks, or that show that masks can capture many large droplets produced by a sneezing or coughing mask-wearer, in light of the above-described features of the problem, are irrelevant. For example, see such studies as these: Leung (2020), Davies (2013), Lai (2012), and Sande (2008).

    Why there can never be an empirical test of a nationwide mask-wearing policy
    As mentioned above, no study exists that shows a benefit from a broad policy to wear masks in public. There is good reason for this. It would be impossible to obtain unambiguous and bias-free results:
    • Any benefit from mask-wearing would have to be a small effect, since undetected in controlled experiments, which would be swamped by the larger effects, notably the large effect from changing atmospheric humidity.
    • Mask compliance and mask adjustment habits would be unknown.
    • Mask-wearing is associated (correlated) with several other health behaviours; see Wada (2012).
    • The results would not be transferable, because of differing cultural habits.
    • Compliance is achieved by fear, and individuals can habituate to fear-based propaganda, and can have disparate basic responses.
    • Monitoring and compliance measurement are near-impossible, and subject to large errors.
    • Self-reporting (such as in surveys) is notoriously biased, because individuals have the self-interested belief that their efforts are useful.
    • Progression of the epidemic is not verified with reliable tests on large population samples, and generally relies on non-representative hospital visits or admissions.
    • Several different pathogens (viruses and strains of viruses) causing respiratory illness generally act together, in the same population and/or in individuals, and are not resolved, while having different epidemiological characteristics.
    Unknown aspects of mask-wearing
    Many potential harms may arise from broad public policies to wear masks, and the following unanswered questions arise:
    • Do used and loaded masks become sources of enhanced transmission, for the wearer and others?
    • Do masks become collectors and retainers of pathogens that the mask wearer would otherwise avoid when breathing without a mask?
    • Are large droplets captured by a mask atomized or aerolized into breathable components? Can virions escape an evaporating droplet stuck to a mask fiber?
    • What are the dangers of bacterial growth on a used and loaded mask?
    • How do pathogen-laden droplets interact with environmental dust and aerosols captured on the mask?
    • What are long-term health effects on HCW, such as headaches, arising from impeded breathing?
    • Are there negative social consequences to a masked society?
    • Are there negative psychological consequences to wearing a mask, as a fear-based behavioural modification?
    • What are the environmental consequences of mask manufacturing and disposal?
    • Do the masks shed fibres or substances that are harmful when inhaled?
    Conclusion
    By making mask-wearing recommendations and policies for the general public, or by expressly condoning the practice, governments have both ignored the scientific evidence and done the opposite of following the precautionary principle.

    In an absence of knowledge, governments should not make policies that have a hypothetical potential to cause harm. The government has an onus barrier before it instigates a broad social-engineering intervention, or allows corporations to exploit fear-based sentiments.

    Furthermore, individuals should know that there is no known benefit arising from wearing a mask in a viral respiratory illness epidemic, and that scientific studies have shown that any benefit must be residually small, compared to other and determinative factors.

    Otherwise, what is the point of publicly-funded science?

    The present paper about masks illustrates the degree to which governments, the mainstream media, and institutional propagandists can decide to operate in a science vacuum, or select only incomplete science that serves their interests. Such recklessness is also certainly the case with the current global lockdown of over 1 billion people, an unprecedented experiment in medical and political history.

    Endnotes
    • Baccam, P. et al. (2006) "Kinetics of Influenza A Virus Infection in Humans", Journal of Virology Jul 2006, 80 (15) 7590-7599; DOI: 10.1128/JVI.01623-05
    • Balazy et al. (2006) "Do N95 respirators provide 95% protection level against airborne viruses, and how adequate are surgical masks?", American Journal of Infection Control, Volume 34, Issue 2, March 2006, Pages 51-57. doi:10.1016/j.ajic.2005.08.018
    • Biggerstaff, M. et al. (2014) "Estimates of the reproduction number for seasonal, pandemic, and zoonotic influenza: a systematic review of the literature", BMC Infect Dis 14, 480 (2014).
    • Brooke, C. B. et al. (2013) "Most Influenza A Virions Fail To Express at Least One Essential Viral Protein", Journal of Virology Feb 2013, 87 (6) 3155-3162; DOI: 10.1128/JVI.02284-12
    • Coburn, B. J. et al. (2009) "Modeling influenza epidemics and pandemics: insights into the future of swine flu (H1N1)", BMC Med 7, 30.
    • Davies, A. et al. (2013) "Testing the Efficacy of Homemade Masks: Would They Protect in an Influenza Pandemic?", Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness, Available on CJO 2013 doi:10.1017/dmp.2013.43
    • Despres, V. R. et al. (2012) "Primary biological aerosol particles in the atmosphere: a review", Tellus B: Chemical and Physical Meteorology, 64:1, 15598, DOI: 10.3402/tellusb.v64i0.15598
    • Dowell, S. F. (2001) "Seasonal variation in host susceptibility and cycles of certain infectious diseases", Emerg Infect Dis. 2001;7(3):369-374. doi:10.3201/eid0703.010301
    • Hammond, G. W. et al. (1989) "Impact of Atmospheric Dispersion and Transport of Viral Aerosols on the Epidemiology of Influenza", Reviews of Infectious Diseases, Volume 11, Issue 3, May 1989, Pages 494-497,
    • Haas, C.N. et al. (1993) "Risk Assessment of Virus in Drinking Water", Risk Analysis, 13: 545-552. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.1993.tb00013.x
    • HealthKnowlege-UK (2020) "Charter 1a - Epidemiology: Epidemic theory (effective & basic reproduction numbers, epidemic thresholds) & techniques for analysis of infectious disease data (construction & use of epidemic curves, generation numbers, exceptional reporting & identification of significant clusters)", HealthKnowledge.org.uk, accessed on 2020-04-10.
    • Lai, A. C. K. et al. (2012) "Effectiveness of facemasks to reduce exposure hazards for airborne infections among general populations", J. R. Soc. Interface. 9938-948
    • Leung, N.H.L. et al. (2020) "Respiratory virus shedding in exhaled breath and efficacy of face masks", Nature Medicine (2020).
    • Lowen, A. C. et al. (2007) "Influenza Virus Transmission Is Dependent on Relative Humidity and Temperature", PLoS Pathog 3(10): e151.
    • Paules, C. and Subbarao, S. (2017) "Influenza", Lancet, Seminar| Volume 390, ISSUE 10095, P697-708, August 12, 2017.
    • Sande, van der, M. et al. (2008) "Professional and Home-Made Face Masks Reduce Exposure to Respiratory Infections among the General Population", PLoS ONE 3(7): e2618. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0002618 Shaman, J. et al. (2010) "Absolute Humidity and the Seasonal Onset of Influenza in the Continental United States", PLoS Biol 8(2): e1000316. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1000316
    • Tracht, S. M. et al. (2010) "Mathematical Modeling of the Effectiveness of Facemasks in Reducing the Spread of Novel Influenza A (H1N1)", PLoS ONE 5(2): e9018. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0009018
    • Viboud C. et al. (2010) "Preliminary Estimates of Mortality and Years of Life Lost Associated with the 2009 A/H1N1 Pandemic in the US and Comparison with Past Influenza Seasons", PLoS Curr. 2010; 2:RRN1153. Published 2010 Mar 20. doi:10.1371/currents.rrn1153
    • Wada, K. et al. (2012) "Wearing face masks in public during the influenza season may reflect other positive hygiene practices in Japan", BMC Public Health 12, 1065 (2012).
    • Yang, W. et al. (2011) "Concentrations and size distributions of airborne influenza A viruses measured indoors at a health centre, a day-care centre and on aeroplanes", Journal of the Royal Society, Interface. 2011 Aug;8(61):1176-1184. DOI: 10.1098/rsif.2010.0686.
    • Yezli, S., Otter, J.A. (2011) "Minimum Infective Dose of the Major Human Respiratory and Enteric Viruses Transmitted Through Food and the Environment", Food Environ Virol 3, 1-30.
    • Zwart, M. P. et al. (2009) "An experimental test of the independent action hypothesis in virus-insect pathosystems", Proc. R. Soc. B. 2762233-2242
    About the author
    Dr. Dennis Rancourt is Ph.D from University of Toronto (1984), and is a former professor of physics at the University of Ottawa.[/QUOTE


    Thank you for this amazing article which proves what many knew intuitively and scientifically.

    In a sane world this would end the debate..

    I have made copies to present to my work collegues.. Now can we send this to Fauci, POTUS and all state Governors ….

    Blessings

    Luke

    Mods I am not sure why the article is not in normal format
    Last edited by Luke Holiday; 23rd May 2020 at 04:14.

  17. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Luke Holiday For This Post:

    ahamkara (24th May 2020), chrifri (23rd May 2020), Gwin Ru (23rd May 2020), onawah (23rd May 2020), TomKat (24th May 2020), Valerie Villars (23rd May 2020)

  18. Link to Post #230
    United States Avalon Member Luke Holiday's Avatar
    Join Date
    15th January 2018
    Location
    Arizona
    Language
    English
    Posts
    277
    Thanks
    628
    Thanked 1,197 times in 232 posts

    Default Re: Do you wear a face mask?

    Quote Posted by AutumnW (here)
    Quote Posted by Luke Holiday (here)
    Quote Posted by AutumnW (here)
    Mikovitz is wrong.
    Judy is very qualified to make her statements which are backed by science … What exactly do feel she is wrong about and why?
    See above posts. Not going to rehash. Mikovits appears to be correct on some aspects of this virus, but is completely wrong on masks. Again, look to the countries who have fared the best and watch Chris Martenson's videos. Get out of the alt right bubble. Bad enough being stuck at home, you don't want to be stuck in an information echi chamber at the same time.
    …. weak....
    Last edited by Luke Holiday; 23rd May 2020 at 04:10.

  19. Link to Post #231
    United States Avalon Member Luke Holiday's Avatar
    Join Date
    15th January 2018
    Location
    Arizona
    Language
    English
    Posts
    277
    Thanks
    628
    Thanked 1,197 times in 232 posts

    Default Re: Do you wear a face mask?

    Here is another strong article off of David ickes site with several references:

    https://www.davidicke.com/article/57...n-dont-protect

  20. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Luke Holiday For This Post:

    chrifri (23rd May 2020), RunningDeer (23rd May 2020), Valerie Villars (23rd May 2020)

  21. Link to Post #232
    United States Avalon Member RunningDeer's Avatar
    Join Date
    6th February 2012
    Location
    Forest Dweller
    Posts
    13,750
    Thanks
    100,929
    Thanked 117,587 times in 13,495 posts

    Default Re: Do you wear a face mask?

    Quote Posted by Luke Holiday (here)
    Here is another strong article off of David ickes site with several references:

    https://www.davidicke.com/article/57...n-dont-protect
    Unmasking the Truth: Studies Show Dehumanizing Masks
    Weaken You and Don’t Protect You

    MAKIA FREEMAN
    May 22, 2020

    Dehumanizing masks

    …have sadly become a part of the new normal in many states and nations around the world. Many local and state governments are forcing people to wear them, and many businesses are dutifully toeing the official line and refusing entry to customers who don't wear them. Apart from the obvious truth that widespread mask usage has a deliberately dehumanizing effect (in line with the transhumanist synthetic agenda), many scientific studies show that masks serve no useful medical purpose for healthy people. Masks weaken you by causing hypercapnia (increased carbon dioxide) and hypoxia (decreased oxygen). They are designed for surgeons (so they don't accidentally transmit bodily fluids like saliva into a patient they are operating upon) or for sick people (so they don't infect others via large respiratory droplets). Scientifically speaking, they don't stop healthy people from getting infected! Below is the evidence showing this. This will leave you with the inescapable conclusion that these masks are not about protecting health – but rather about control, dehumanization and the destruction of health.

    Masks Lead to Under-Oxygenation, a Forerunner to Fatigue, Weakness and Serious Diseases Like Cancer

    It is a commonsense scientific fact that wearing a mask blocks your airways and therefore leads to both hypercapnia (an increase in and accumulation of carbon dioxide in the body from breathing in exhaled air) and hypoxia (a lack of oxygen in the tissues). Symptoms of hypercapnia include dizziness, drowsiness, excessive fatigue, headaches, feeling disoriented, flushing of the skin and shortness of breath. Symptoms of hypoxia include anxiety, restlessness, confusion, changes in the color of skin, cough, rapid breathing, shortness of breath and sweating. Not surprisingly, both conditions are similar, since they are both characterized by a lack of oxygen. In addition, hypoxia has been shown to lead to impaired immunity in general, and to be a forerunner to serious diseases such as atherosclerosis, stroke and heart attack. It is also the necessary precondition for the development of cancer (as I covered in my series on natural cancer cures). Dr. Russell Blaylock highlights how wearing a mask is actually putting you at more risk of infection, because you are lowering your overall health, strength and immunity by under-oxygenation:
    “It is known that the N95 mask, if worn for hours, can reduce blood oxygenation as much as 20%, which can lead to a loss of consciousness, as happened to the hapless fellow driving around alone in his car wearing an N95 mask, causing him to pass out, and to crash his car and sustain injuries ... A more recent study involving 159 healthcare workers aged 21 to 35 years of age found that 81% developed headaches from wearing a face mask. Some had pre-existing headaches that were precipitated by the masks. All felt like the headaches affected their work performance."

    ...

    “The importance of these findings is that a drop in oxygen levels (hypoxia) is associated with an impairment in immunity. Studies have shown that hypoxia can inhibit the type of main immune cells used to fight viral infections called the CD4+ T-lymphocyte. This occurs because the hypoxia increases the level of a compound called hypoxia inducible factor-1 (HIF-1), which inhibits T-lymphocytes and stimulates a powerful immune inhibitor cell called the Tregs. This sets the stage for contracting any infection, including COVID-19 and making the consequences of that infection much graver. In essence, your mask may very well put you at an increased risk of infections and if so, having a much worse outcome.”
    Blaylock also emphasizes how wearing masks is dangerous from a health perspective – it encourages the recycling (rather than the expulsion) of viruses and bacteria, some of which can enter the brain with potentially lethal consequences:
    “It gets even more frightening. Newer evidence suggests that in some cases the virus can enter the brain. In most instances it enters the brain by way of the olfactory nerves (smell nerves), which connect directly with the area of the brain dealing with recent memory and memory consolidation. By wearing a mask, the exhaled viruses will not be able to escape and will concentrate in the nasal passages, enter the olfactory nerves and travel into the brain.”
    Public Health Agency of Canada Admits "Little Evidence" Masks Protect Healthy People

    This document from the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) openly admits there is little evidence that, if you are well or healthy, wearing a mask will somehow protect you. This flies in the face of the propaganda going around that "my mask protects you, your mask protects me" since the only point (if you are not someone like a surgeon) is for already sick people to wear them to block the escape of large respiratory droplets. It is standard medical practice that masks are worn by the infected not the uninfected (as in the case when someone has TB), just as it is standard medical practice that quarantine is for the sick or immuno-compromised not the whole infected community. The definition of quarantine is “a state, period, or place of isolation in which people or animals that have arrived from elsewhere or been exposed to infectious or contagious disease are placed” so, ipso facto, the lockdown of an entire society is not quarantine but outright tyranny. Remember, Operation Coronavirus is not about medical common sense or logic; it's about control. The PHAC document states:
    “Little evidence exists as to how effectively the wearing of a mask by well individuals will prevent them from becoming infected ... For masks to be effective, individuals must wear them consistently and correctly; these actions can be challenging. Masks must be worn only once, never shared and always changed when soiled or wet. If not used properly, masks may lead to a greater risk of pandemic influenza transmission because of contamination, or they may make the user overconfident and hence neglectful of other personal protective measures, such as hand hygiene, respiratory etiquette and self-isolation when ill – measures that have been deemed important complementary actions to the use of masks for the reduction of disease transmission. Finally, given that masks cannot be used when eating and drinking and may make communication difficult, wearing them for prolonged periods may be impractical and ineffective.”
    Harboring Bacteria and Viruses

    The masks many people are wearing – homemade from cloth, bandannas, etc. – are a joke if you think they will stop a virus which is measured in nanometers (nanometer = 10-9 meters, or 0.000000001 meters). They won't stop a virus but they will assuredly become a hotbed for microbes to develop due to the warm and humid conditions. This article quotes some Indian doctors:
    “He pointed out that masks are a potential source of bacteria and viruses. “The moisture from exhalation inside the mask, when in constant contact with the 37 degrees Celsius warm human body, becomes ideal place for virus and bacteria to thrive,” he said. "This could result in the growth of microbes on masks and aid the spread of airborne diseases like influenza."

    “The N95 or N99 mask varieties have been traditionally used in hospitals to prevent tuberculosis and other infections during flu season,” said Dr KK Aggarwal, president of the Indian Medical Association. “They can block particulate matter only if you completely prevent air-leaks, and that is not possible.” ... Aggarwal said such comfort from wearing a mask “is only psychological” and warned against using masks without doctor’s recommendations."
    Only psychological indeed. That's what Operation Coronavirus is: a psychological game of perception management.

    Masks Make People "Feel" Safer

    We are in the middle of a perception war. In perception, often it is emotion not reason which plays a driving role. At the level of the psychopath setting the agenda, the NWO (New World Order) manipulators cleverly exploit this by demanding governments enforce stupid and ineffectual rules like mandatory mask-wearing. At the level of the idiot carrying out the agenda, local and state governmental officials proclaim everyone must wear a mask, so these low-level officials CYA (cover their asses), pacify the population and make it look they are being decisive by taking action. But it's all a sham, because the masks offer nonprotection as this study The surgical mask is a bad fit for risk reduction states:
    I propose that the surgical mask is a symbol that protects from the perception of risk by offering nonprotection to the public while causing behaviours that project risk into the future ... In an annex to the Canadian pandemic influenza preparedness plan covering public health measures, the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) does not recommend the use of masks by well individuals in pandemic situations, acknowledging that the mask has not been shown to be effective in such circumstances ... The same annex on public health measures refers to the “false sense of security” that a mask can psychologically provide, but the converse is the real risk posed to a government unable to mollify its population."
    Final Thoughts

    Mandatory mask-wearing orders are just another way in which NWO conspirators are testing how far they can push people and seeing how much they can get away with. Just like the unscientific social distancing rules (1 meter, 1.5 meters, 2 meters, 6 feet or something else depending upon where you live), masks are symbolic of this entire fake pandemic operation. It's not about reason or logic; it's about fear and conditioning. They are training you to obey, training you to question whether you are following all the rules for every minute of your existence, training people to snitch on each other, training people to accept isolation and training people to fear each other (just as with the manmade climate change hoax).

    Now we can't even see people's face when we interact with them! People of the Earth – WAKE UP!

    This is mass conditioning. The degree to which healthy people willingly endorse and obey mask-wearing orders is directly proportional to their level of ignorance and fear. No interventions such as masks or vaccines can come close to the importance of living healthfully and developing your inner terrain (and hence your immune system) so that you are less susceptible to disease. It's time to 'unmask' the truth and use this crisis to educate ourselves and others about the true nature of viruses, the immune system, health and disease.
    See article for Makia Freeman bio, sources and hyperlinks.

  22. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to RunningDeer For This Post:

    ahamkara (25th May 2020), anandacate (26th May 2020), chrifri (23rd May 2020), DaveToo (23rd May 2020), greybeard (23rd May 2020), Gwin Ru (23rd May 2020), justntime2learn (25th May 2020), Luke Holiday (23rd May 2020)

  23. Link to Post #233
    Canada Avalon Member TomKat's Avatar
    Join Date
    23rd September 2017
    Posts
    1,138
    Thanks
    372
    Thanked 4,565 times in 999 posts

    Default Re: Do you wear a face mask?

    Robert Morningstar speculates that normalizing face masks could allow Antifa mobs to anonymously interfere with the 2020 US elections. And of course, the Hong Kong protesters would be similarly empowered, should that start up again -- a nice Covid backfire for China :-)

  24. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to TomKat For This Post:

    Holly Lindin (6th June 2020), Luke Holiday (24th May 2020), RunningDeer (24th May 2020)

  25. Link to Post #234
    Avalon Member norman's Avatar
    Join Date
    25th March 2010
    Location
    too close to the hot air exhaust
    Age
    64
    Posts
    5,357
    Thanks
    7,812
    Thanked 26,270 times in 4,671 posts

    Default Re: Do you wear a face mask?

    .................................................. my first language is TYPO..............................................

  26. The Following 12 Users Say Thank You to norman For This Post:

    ahamkara (25th May 2020), anandacate (26th May 2020), ClearWater (24th May 2020), greybeard (25th May 2020), happyuk (26th May 2020), Holly Lindin (6th June 2020), justntime2learn (25th May 2020), palehorse (1st June 2020), Pigtail Gurl (25th May 2020), RunningDeer (25th May 2020), thepainterdoug (24th May 2020), XelNaga (26th May 2020)

  27. Link to Post #235
    United States Avalon Member ahamkara's Avatar
    Join Date
    3rd May 2010
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Posts
    328
    Thanks
    1,006
    Thanked 1,617 times in 283 posts

    Default Re: Do you wear a face mask?

    It is telling that masks have become such a strong symbol of compliance and submission. I notice that the type of facial covering (at least here in Oregon) varies from the hard-core, perfectly fitted mask with a filter, to the cavalier bandana waving in the breeze. We have had 147 deaths here, nearly all of them of the elderly in nursing homes. It is especially puzzling to me to watch people walking all alone in the rain, on totally deserted streets, wearing a mask.

  28. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to ahamkara For This Post:

    anandacate (26th May 2020), greybeard (25th May 2020), Holly Lindin (6th June 2020), justntime2learn (26th May 2020), Luke Holiday (25th May 2020), RunningDeer (25th May 2020)

  29. Link to Post #236
    UK Avalon Member
    Join Date
    16th April 2015
    Location
    londinium
    Age
    45
    Posts
    16
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 183 times in 15 posts

    Default Re: Do you wear a face mask?

    I have to put one on in Spain to go shopping. I try not to walk wearing one as got sick from it. ;(

    ¤=[Post Update]=¤

    I was thinking of making one from an old fishnet stocking ;O

  30. The Following User Says Thank You to Pigtail Gurl For This Post:

    RunningDeer (25th May 2020)

  31. Link to Post #237
    United States Avalon Member Ratszinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    9th September 2018
    Posts
    778
    Thanks
    1,315
    Thanked 4,586 times in 746 posts

    Default Re: Do you wear a face mask?

    Where's my chainsaw!? I found my old hunting mask! Just in time for contagion season!!
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version

Name:	Vote for me.jpg
Views:	4
Size:	86.9 KB
ID:	43698  
    The genius consistently stands out from the masses in that he unconsciously anticipates truths of which the population as a whole only later becomes conscious! Speech-circa 1937

  32. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Ratszinger For This Post:

    ahamkara (25th May 2020), ClearWater (25th May 2020), palehorse (1st June 2020), RunningDeer (25th May 2020)

  33. Link to Post #238
    United States Avalon Member RunningDeer's Avatar
    Join Date
    6th February 2012
    Location
    Forest Dweller
    Posts
    13,750
    Thanks
    100,929
    Thanked 117,587 times in 13,495 posts

    Default Re: Do you wear a face mask?

    Alternatives ...
    Bumper Tables


    Pac-Man Dine Out Mask


    Social distancing in San Francisco Park



    Burger King debuts 'social-distance crowns' in Germany


  34. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to RunningDeer For This Post:

    ahamkara (25th May 2020), ClearWater (25th May 2020), Franny (25th May 2020), justntime2learn (26th May 2020), palehorse (1st June 2020), Ratszinger (25th May 2020)

  35. Link to Post #239
    United States Avalon Member RunningDeer's Avatar
    Join Date
    6th February 2012
    Location
    Forest Dweller
    Posts
    13,750
    Thanks
    100,929
    Thanked 117,587 times in 13,495 posts

    Default Re: Do you wear a face mask?

    Quote Posted by Pigtail Gurl (here)
    I have to put one on in Spain to go shopping. I try not to walk wearing one as got sick from it. ;(

    ¤=[Post Update]=¤

    I was thinking of making one from an old fishnet stocking ;O
    Nice to see you, Pigtail Gurl. Hola Wizard

    I use a DIY bandana to grocery shop. (vid below) A few days ago, I only put it over my mouth so I could breathe better. That's when I noticed a couple of others did the same. One was an employee.

    A few weeks back, there were three employees stocking the shelves in the same aisle. They're masks dangled around their necks. When they saw me round the corner, they quickly pulled them up. I pretended not to see them.


    DIY No Sew Face Mask Easy and Quick for Anyone (1:38 minutes)
    Last edited by RunningDeer; 25th May 2020 at 23:05.

  36. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to RunningDeer For This Post:

    anandacate (26th May 2020), Franny (25th May 2020), justntime2learn (26th May 2020), Kryztian (26th May 2020)

  37. Link to Post #240
    UK Avalon Founder Bill Ryan's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th February 2010
    Location
    Ecuador
    Posts
    23,527
    Thanks
    89,201
    Thanked 298,021 times in 22,018 posts

    Default Re: Do you wear a face mask?

    I posted a month ago that in Ecuador, masks are mandatory. So there are no personal decisions to be made, if one wants to enter any store. But today, Cuenca went from 'red' to 'yellow', and that was just SO great to see.

    90% of the stores were open, and all the malls. The streets were crowded, and the only thing that wasn't quite normal again, despite the ubiquitous masks, was no buses — yet, but there will be soon: one person per double seat. Buses are vitally important for all the people here.

    I believe there are some restrictions on some restaurants. And the overnight curfew has been rolled back from starting at 2pm to starting at 9pm. That makes a big difference, all on its own.

    But what hit me was this. It was just so heartening to see people working again, selling things again, buying things again.

    That's critically important, more so than anything else right now. Against that, discussions about masks are comparatively trivial.

    Ecuador dropped the ball in Guayaquil for a couple weeks, with the whole world watching. For a short while, things were truly awful there. But apart from that period of local chaos, things have been orderly, quiet, well-organized, and the government has been hell-bent on re-opening the country in a reasonable way now that hospitals aren't overwhelmed any more. And there have been no shortages of anything at all.

    After all, that was the stated purpose of all the lockdowns in every country. Just to flatten the curve.

    No-one in Ecuador is talking about a vaccine. Just about getting the fatalities and ICU cases down — real numbers or not. Those stats drive the decisions. At least, here they do.

    So America, take note. Get the people back to work. Masks or not, it doesn't matter all that much.

    It's starting to look like the US may be one of the last first world countries to fully open up again. If wearing masks helps a return to normality (the original normal, not the "new" one!), that that has to be tolerable. Societies all over the world HAVE to return to regular business, or there'll be the biggest catastrophe in the last 100 years.

    There's absolutely NO logical reason that I'm aware of why almost every country can't be doing the same thing right now as Ecuador.


    If they're not, then something else is driving the decisions.
    Last edited by Tintin; 25th May 2020 at 22:41.

  38. The Following 20 Users Say Thank You to Bill Ryan For This Post:

    ahamkara (25th May 2020), anandacate (26th May 2020), Ben Macdonald (25th May 2020), ClearWater (25th May 2020), East Sun (25th May 2020), Franny (25th May 2020), Gracy May (25th May 2020), Gwin Ru (26th May 2020), happyuk (26th May 2020), justntime2learn (26th May 2020), Ken (25th May 2020), kudzy (26th May 2020), leavesoftrees (26th May 2020), palehorse (1st June 2020), RunningDeer (25th May 2020), Sarah Rainsong (25th May 2020), thepainterdoug (25th May 2020), Tintin (25th May 2020), TomKat (26th May 2020), Yoda (25th May 2020)

+ Reply to Thread
Page 12 of 17 FirstFirst 1 2 12 17 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts